DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to Category Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction to Category Theory Introduction to category theory Valdis Laan∗ December 10, 2003 Contents 1 Categories 2 1.1 On set-theoretical foundations . 2 1.2 Definition of category . 2 1.3 Functional programming languages as categories . 3 1.4 Some constructions . 4 2 Properties of morphisms and objects 5 2.1 Properties of morphisms . 5 2.2 Properties of objects . 9 3 Functors 11 3.1 Covariant and contravariant functors . 11 3.2 On duality . 13 3.3 Some properties of functors . 14 3.4 Comma categories . 15 4 Natural transformations 18 4.1 Definition and examples of natural transformations . 18 4.2 Categories of functors . 20 4.3 The Yoneda Lemma . 20 4.4 The Godement product of natural transformations . 22 5 Limits and colimits 24 5.1 Products and coproducts . 24 5.2 Equalizers and coequalizers . 30 5.3 Pullbacks and pushouts . 32 5.4 Limits and colimits . 33 5.5 Complete categories . 36 5.6 Limit preserving functors . 38 5.7 Exercises . 39 6 Adjunctions 41 6.1 Motivating examples . 41 6.2 Adjoint functors . 42 6.3 Examples of adjuncions . 45 6.4 The Adjoint Functor Theorem . 47 6.5 Equivalence of categories . 48 6.6 Exercises . 49 ∗These notes are a compilation of sources [1]-[5], not an original work by V.L. 1 1 Categories 1.1 On set-theoretical foundations It is well-known that the set of all sets does not exist. However, category theory would like to deal with collections of all sets, all groups, all topological spaces etc. A way to handle this is to assume the axiom of the existence of so-called universes. Definition 1.1 (U, ∈) is a universe, if it satisfies the following properties: 1. x ∈ y and y ∈ U ⇒ x ∈ U, S 2. I ∈ U and (∀i ∈ I)(xi ∈ U) ⇒ i∈I xi ∈ U, 3. x ∈ U ⇒ P(x) ∈ U, 4. x ∈ U, y ⊆ U, f : x → y is a surjective function ⇒ y ∈ U, 5. ω ∈ U, where ω is the set of all finite ordinals and P(x) is the set of all subsets of x. Some of the consequences of this definition are the following (cf. [1], Proposition 1.1.3). Proposition 1.2 1. x ∈ U, y ⊆ U and y ⊆ x ⇒ y ∈ U, 2. x ∈ U and y ∈ U ⇒ {x, y} ∈ U, 3. x ∈ U and y ∈ U ⇒ x × y ∈ U, 4. x ∈ U and y ∈ U ⇒ xy ∈ U. The properties of U ensure that any of the standard operations of set theory applied to elements of U will always produce elements of U; in particular ω ∈ U provides that U also contains the usual sets of real numbers and related infinite sets. We can then regard “ordinary” mathematics as carried out extensively within U, i.e. on elements of U. Now let the universe U be fixed and call its elements sets. Thus U is the collection of all sets and we denote it by Set. We also call subsets of U classes. Since x ∈ y ∈ U implies x ∈ U, every element y of U is also a subset of U, that is, every set is a class. Conversely, the class U itself is not a set because U ∈ U would contradict the axiom of regularity, which asserts that there are no infinite chains . xn ∈ xn−1 ∈ xn−2 ∈ ... ∈ x0. The classes that are not sets are called proper classes. In this way we can consider for example proper classes of all groups, all topological spaces etc. as subclasses of Set. 1.2 Definition of category Definition 1.3 A category C consists of the following: 1. a class C0, whose elements will be called “objects of the category”; 2. for every pair A, B of objects, a set C(A, B), whose elements will be called “morphisms” or “arrows” from A to B; 3. for every triple A, B, C of objects, a composition law C(A, B) × C(B, C) −→ C(A, C); the composite of the pair (f, g) will be written g ◦ f or just gf; 4. for every object A, a morphism 1A ∈ C(A, A), called the identity morphism of A. These data are subject to the following axioms. 1. Associativity axiom: given morphisms f ∈ C(A, B), g ∈ C(B, C), h ∈ C(C, D) the following equality holds: h(gf) = (hg)f. 2 2. Identity axiom: given morphisms f ∈ C(A, B), g ∈ C(B, C), the following equalities hold: 1Bf = f, g1B = g. A morphism f ∈ C(A, B) is often written as f : A → B, A is called the domain (notation: dom f) or the source of f and B is called the codomain (notation: cod f) or the target of f. A morphism f : A → A is called an endomorphism of A. Remarks 1.4 1. It turns out that 1A is the only identity morphism of A, because if iA ∈ C(A, A) is another morphism satisfying the identity axiom, then 1A = 1AiA = iA. 2. Very much in the same way as in the case of semigroups, the associativity axion implies that parentheses in any composite of finite number of morphisms can be placed in arbitrary way and therefore actually omitted. Definition 1.5 A category is small if its objects constitute a set, otherwise it is large . Example 1.6 The next table gives some examples of categories. Notation Objects Morphisms Set sets mappings Rel sets binary relations between sets Mon monoids monoid homomorphisms Gr groups group homomorphisms Ab abelian groups group homomorphisms Rng rings with unit ring homomorphisms VecR real vector spaces linear mappings ModR right modules over ring R module homomorphisms Ban∞ real Banach spaces bounded linear mappings Ban1 real Banach spaces linear contractions Top topological spaces continuous mappings Pos posets order-preserving mappings Lat lattices lattice homomorphisms Graph graphs graph homomorphisms Sgraph graphs strong graph homomorphisms 0 none none 1 A 1A 2 A, B A → B, 1A, 1B In most cases, the composition of morphisms is just the composition of mappings and identity morphisms are identity transformations. In Rel, the composition of relations is their product and the identity morphism is the equality relation. The category 0 is called the empty category . Example 1.7 1. Objects: natural numbers, morphisms from m to n are all matrices (over a fixed field) with m rows and n columns, the composition of morphisms is the usual multiplication of matrices. 2. A poset (P, ≤) can be regarded as a category P with object set P . If x, y ∈ P then P(x, y) consists of exactly one morphism if x ≤ y, and is empty otherwise. 3. Every set can be viewed as a discrete category, i.e. a category where the only morphisms are the identity morphisms. 4. Every monoid (M, ·) gives rise to a category M with a single object ∗, M0 = {∗}, and M(∗, ∗) = M; the composition of morphisms is the multiplication · of M. Also conversely, the set of all morphisms of every one-object category is a monoid. 1.3 Functional programming languages as categories A (pure) functional programming language has 1. Primitive data types, given in the language. 3 2. Constants of each type. 3. Operations, which are functions between the types. 4. Constructors, which can be applied to data types and operations to produce derived data types and operations of the language. The language consists of the set of all operations and types derivable from the primitive data types and primitive operations. To see that a functional programming language L corresponds in a canonical way to a category C(L), we have to make two assumptions and one small change. 1. We assume that for each type A (both primitive and constructed) there is a do-nothing operation 1A. When applied, it does nothing to the data. 2. We add to the language an additional type called 1, which has the property that from every type A there is a unique operation to 1. We interpret each constant c of type A as a morphism c : 1 → A. 3. We assume that the language has a comptosition constructor: if f is an operation with inputs of type A and outputs of type B and another operation g has inputs of type B and output of type C, then doing one after the other is a derived operation (or program) typically denoted f; g, which has input of type A and output of type C. Under these conditions, a functional programming language L induces a category C(L), for which 1. the objects of C(L) are the types of L, 2. the morphisms of C(L) are the operations (primitive and derived) of L, 3. domain and codomain of a morphism are the input and output types of the corresponding operation, 4. composition of morphisms is given by the composition constructor, written in the reverse order, 5. the identity morphisms are the do-nothing operations. Example 1.8 Consider a language with three data types nat (natural numbers and 0), boolean (true or false) and char (characters). We give a description of its operations in categorical style. 1. nat should have a constant 0 : 1 → nat and an operation succ : nat → nat. 2. There should be two constants true, false : 1 → boolean and an operation ¬ : boolean → boolean subject to the equalities ¬ ◦ true = false and ¬ ◦ false = true. 3. char should have one constant c : 1 → char for each character c. 4. There should be two type conversion operators ord : char → nat and chr : nat → char. These must satisfy the equality chr◦ord = 1char. (One can think of chr as operating modulo the number of characters, so that it is defined on all natural numbers.) An example program is the morphism ‘next’ defined to be the composite chr ◦ succ ◦ ord : char → char, which calculates the next character.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints
    A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Copyright c 2003 by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Abstract A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 2003 Eliciting the requirements for a proposed system typically involves different stakeholders with different expertise, responsibilities, and perspectives. This may result in inconsis- tencies between the descriptions provided by stakeholders. Viewpoints-based approaches have been proposed as a way to manage incomplete and inconsistent models gathered from multiple sources. In this thesis, we propose a category-theoretic framework for the analysis of fuzzy viewpoints. Informally, a fuzzy viewpoint is a graph in which the elements of a lattice are used to specify the amount of knowledge available about the details of nodes and edges. By defining an appropriate notion of morphism between fuzzy viewpoints, we construct categories of fuzzy viewpoints and prove that these categories are (finitely) cocomplete. We then show how colimits can be employed to merge the viewpoints and detect the inconsistencies that arise independent of any particular choice of viewpoint semantics. Taking advantage of the same category-theoretic techniques used in defining fuzzy viewpoints, we will also introduce a more general graph-based formalism that may find applications in other contexts. ii To my mother and father with love and gratitude. Acknowledgements First of all, I wish to thank my supervisor Steve Easterbrook for his guidance, support, and patience.
    [Show full text]
  • Nearly Locally Presentable Categories Are Locally Presentable Is Equivalent to Vopˇenka’S Principle
    NEARLY LOCALLY PRESENTABLE CATEGORIES L. POSITSELSKI AND J. ROSICKY´ Abstract. We introduce a new class of categories generalizing locally presentable ones. The distinction does not manifest in the abelian case and, assuming Vopˇenka’s principle, the same happens in the regular case. The category of complete partial orders is the natural example of a nearly locally finitely presentable category which is not locally presentable. 1. Introduction Locally presentable categories were introduced by P. Gabriel and F. Ulmer in [6]. A category K is locally λ-presentable if it is cocomplete and has a strong generator consisting of λ-presentable objects. Here, λ is a regular cardinal and an object A is λ-presentable if its hom-functor K(A, −): K → Set preserves λ-directed colimits. A category is locally presentable if it is locally λ-presentable for some λ. This con- cept of presentability formalizes the usual practice – for instance, finitely presentable groups are precisely groups given by finitely many generators and finitely many re- lations. Locally presentable categories have many nice properties, in particular they are complete and co-wellpowered. Gabriel and Ulmer [6] also showed that one can define locally presentable categories by using just monomorphisms instead all morphisms. They defined λ-generated ob- jects as those whose hom-functor K(A, −) preserves λ-directed colimits of monomor- phisms. Again, this concept formalizes the usual practice – finitely generated groups are precisely groups admitting a finite set of generators. This leads to locally gener- ated categories, where a cocomplete category K is locally λ-generated if it has a strong arXiv:1710.10476v2 [math.CT] 2 Apr 2018 generator consisting of λ-generated objects and every object of K has only a set of strong quotients.
    [Show full text]
  • The Subgroups of a Free Product of Two Groups with an Amalgamated Subgroup!1)
    transactions of the american mathematical society Volume 150, July, 1970 THE SUBGROUPS OF A FREE PRODUCT OF TWO GROUPS WITH AN AMALGAMATED SUBGROUP!1) BY A. KARRASS AND D. SOLITAR Abstract. We prove that all subgroups H of a free product G of two groups A, B with an amalgamated subgroup V are obtained by two constructions from the inter- section of H and certain conjugates of A, B, and U. The constructions are those of a tree product, a special kind of generalized free product, and of a Higman-Neumann- Neumann group. The particular conjugates of A, B, and U involved are given by double coset representatives in a compatible regular extended Schreier system for G modulo H. The structure of subgroups indecomposable with respect to amalgamated product, and of subgroups satisfying a nontrivial law is specified. Let A and B have the property P and U have the property Q. Then it is proved that G has the property P in the following cases: P means every f.g. (finitely generated) subgroup is finitely presented, and Q means every subgroup is f.g.; P means the intersection of two f.g. subgroups is f.g., and Q means finite; P means locally indicable, and Q means cyclic. It is also proved that if A' is a f.g. normal subgroup of G not contained in U, then NU has finite index in G. 1. Introduction. In the case of a free product G = A * B, the structure of a subgroup H may be described as follows (see [9, 4.3]): there exist double coset representative systems {Da}, {De} for G mod (H, A) and G mod (H, B) respectively, and there exists a set of elements t\, t2,..
    [Show full text]
  • Generalized Inverse Limits and Topological Entropy
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repository of Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb FACULTY OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS Goran Erceg GENERALIZED INVERSE LIMITS AND TOPOLOGICAL ENTROPY DOCTORAL THESIS Zagreb, 2016 PRIRODOSLOVNO - MATEMATICKIˇ FAKULTET MATEMATICKIˇ ODSJEK Goran Erceg GENERALIZIRANI INVERZNI LIMESI I TOPOLOŠKA ENTROPIJA DOKTORSKI RAD Zagreb, 2016. FACULTY OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS Goran Erceg GENERALIZED INVERSE LIMITS AND TOPOLOGICAL ENTROPY DOCTORAL THESIS Supervisors: prof. Judy Kennedy prof. dr. sc. Vlasta Matijevic´ Zagreb, 2016 PRIRODOSLOVNO - MATEMATICKIˇ FAKULTET MATEMATICKIˇ ODSJEK Goran Erceg GENERALIZIRANI INVERZNI LIMESI I TOPOLOŠKA ENTROPIJA DOKTORSKI RAD Mentori: prof. Judy Kennedy prof. dr. sc. Vlasta Matijevic´ Zagreb, 2016. Acknowledgements First of all, i want to thank my supervisor professor Judy Kennedy for accept- ing a big responsibility of guiding a transatlantic student. Her enthusiasm and love for mathematics are contagious. I thank professor Vlasta Matijevi´c, not only my supervisor but also my role model as a professor of mathematics. It was privilege to be guided by her for master's and doctoral thesis. I want to thank all my math teachers, from elementary school onwards, who helped that my love for math rises more and more with each year. Special thanks to Jurica Cudina´ who showed me a glimpse of math theory already in the high school. I thank all members of the Topology seminar in Split who always knew to ask right questions at the right moment and to guide me in the right direction. I also thank Iztok Baniˇcand the rest of the Topology seminar in Maribor who welcomed me as their member and showed me the beauty of a teamwork.
    [Show full text]
  • The Free Product of Groups with Amalgamated Subgroup Malnorrnal in a Single Factor
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector JOURNAL OF PURE AND APPLIED ALGEBRA Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 127 (1998) 119-136 The free product of groups with amalgamated subgroup malnorrnal in a single factor Steven A. Bleiler*, Amelia C. Jones Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207, USA University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA Communicated by C.A. Weibel; received 10 May 1994; received in revised form 22 August 1995 Abstract We discuss groups that are free products with amalgamation where the amalgamating subgroup is of rank at least two and malnormal in at least one of the factor groups. In 1971, Karrass and Solitar showed that when the amalgamating subgroup is malnormal in both factors, the global group cannot be two-generator. When the amalgamating subgroup is malnormal in a single factor, the global group may indeed be two-generator. If so, we show that either the non-malnormal factor contains a torsion element or, if not, then there is a generating pair of one of four specific types. For each type, we establish a set of relations which must hold in the factor B and give restrictions on the rank and generators of each factor. @ 1998 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. 0. Introduction Baumslag introduced the term malnormal in [l] to describe a subgroup that intersects each of its conjugates trivially. Here we discuss groups that are free products with amalgamation where the amalgamating subgroup is of rank at least two and malnormal in at least one of the factor groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Coreflective Subcategories
    transactions of the american mathematical society Volume 157, June 1971 COREFLECTIVE SUBCATEGORIES BY HORST HERRLICH AND GEORGE E. STRECKER Abstract. General morphism factorization criteria are used to investigate categorical reflections and coreflections, and in particular epi-reflections and mono- coreflections. It is shown that for most categories with "reasonable" smallness and completeness conditions, each coreflection can be "split" into the composition of two mono-coreflections and that under these conditions mono-coreflective subcategories can be characterized as those which are closed under the formation of coproducts and extremal quotient objects. The relationship of reflectivity to closure under limits is investigated as well as coreflections in categories which have "enough" constant morphisms. 1. Introduction. The concept of reflections in categories (and likewise the dual notion—coreflections) serves the purpose of unifying various fundamental con- structions in mathematics, via "universal" properties that each possesses. His- torically, the concept seems to have its roots in the fundamental construction of E. Cech [4] whereby (using the fact that the class of compact spaces is productive and closed-hereditary) each completely regular F2 space is densely embedded in a compact F2 space with a universal extension property. In [3, Appendice III; Sur les applications universelles] Bourbaki has shown the essential underlying similarity that the Cech-Stone compactification has with other mathematical extensions, such as the completion of uniform spaces and the embedding of integral domains in their fields of fractions. In doing so, he essentially defined the notion of reflections in categories. It was not until 1964, when Freyd [5] published the first book dealing exclusively with the theory of categories, that sufficient categorical machinery and insight were developed to allow for a very simple formulation of the concept of reflections and for a basic investigation of reflections as entities themselvesi1).
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Hep-Th/9404101V3 21 Nov 1995
    hep-th/9404101 April 1994 Chern-Simons Gauge Theory on Orbifolds: Open Strings from Three Dimensions ⋆ Petr Horavaˇ ∗ Enrico Fermi Institute University of Chicago 5640 South Ellis Avenue Chicago IL 60637, USA ABSTRACT Chern-Simons gauge theory is formulated on three dimensional Z2 orbifolds. The locus of singular points on a given orbifold is equivalent to a link of Wilson lines. This allows one to reduce any correlation function on orbifolds to a sum of more complicated correlation functions in the simpler theory on manifolds. Chern-Simons theory on manifolds is known arXiv:hep-th/9404101v3 21 Nov 1995 to be related to 2D CFT on closed string surfaces; here I show that the theory on orbifolds is related to 2D CFT of unoriented closed and open string models, i.e. to worldsheet orb- ifold models. In particular, the boundary components of the worldsheet correspond to the components of the singular locus in the 3D orbifold. This correspondence leads to a simple identification of the open string spectra, including their Chan-Paton degeneration, in terms of fusing Wilson lines in the corresponding Chern-Simons theory. The correspondence is studied in detail, and some exactly solvable examples are presented. Some of these examples indicate that it is natural to think of the orbifold group Z2 as a part of the gauge group of the Chern-Simons theory, thus generalizing the standard definition of gauge theories. E-mail address: [email protected] ⋆∗ Address after September 1, 1994: Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544. 1. Introduction Since the first appearance of the notion of “orbifolds” in Thurston’s 1977 lectures on three dimensional topology [1], orbifolds have become very appealing objects for physicists.
    [Show full text]
  • E Modules for Abelian Hopf Algebras 1974: [Papers]/ IMPRINT Mexico, D.F
    llr ~ 1?J STATUS TYPE OCLC# Submitted 02/26/2019 Copy 28784366 IIIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII SOURCE REQUEST DATE NEED BEFORE 193985894 ILLiad 02/26/2019 03/28/2019 BORROWER RECEIVE DATE DUE DATE RRR LENDERS 'ZAP, CUY, CGU BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION LOCAL ID AUTHOR ARTICLE AUTHOR Ravenel, Douglas TITLE Conference on Homotopy Theory: Evanston, Ill., ARTICLE TITLE Dieudonne modules for abelian Hopf algebras 1974: [papers]/ IMPRINT Mexico, D.F. : Sociedad Matematica Mexicana, FORMAT Book 1975. EDITION ISBN VOLUME NUMBER DATE 1975 SERIES NOTE Notas de matematica y simposia ; nr. 1. PAGES 177-183 INTERLIBRARY LOAN INFORMATION ALERT AFFILIATION ARL; RRLC; CRL; NYLINK; IDS; EAST COPYRIGHT US:CCG VERIFIED <TN:1067325><0DYSSEY:216.54.119.128/RRR> MAX COST OCLC IFM - 100.00 USD SHIPPED DATE LEND CHARGES FAX NUMBER LEND RESTRICTIONS EMAIL BORROWER NOTES We loan for free. Members of East, RRLC, and IDS. ODYSSEY 216.54.119.128/RRR ARIEL FTP ARIEL EMAIL BILL TO ILL UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER LIBRARY 755 LIBRARY RD, BOX 270055 ROCHESTER, NY, US 14627-0055 SHIPPING INFORMATION SHIPVIA LM RETURN VIA SHIP TO ILL RETURN TO UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER LIBRARY 755 LIBRARY RD, BOX 270055 ROCHESTER, NY, US 14627-0055 ? ,I _.- l lf;j( T ,J / I/) r;·l'J L, I \" (.' ."i' •.. .. NOTAS DE MATEMATICAS Y SIMPOSIA NUMERO 1 COMITE EDITORIAL CONFERENCE ON HOMOTOPY THEORY IGNACIO CANALS N. SAMUEL GITLER H. FRANCISCO GONZALU ACUNA LUIS G. GOROSTIZA Evanston, Illinois, 1974 Con este volwnen, la Sociedad Matematica Mexicana inicia su nueva aerie NOTAS DE MATEMATICAS Y SIMPOSIA Editado por Donald M.
    [Show full text]
  • Combinatorial Group Theory
    Combinatorial Group Theory Charles F. Miller III March 5, 2002 Abstract These notes were prepared for use by the participants in the Workshop on Algebra, Geometry and Topology held at the Australian National University, 22 January to 9 February, 1996. They have subsequently been updated for use by students in the subject 620-421 Combinatorial Group Theory at the University of Melbourne. Copyright 1996-2002 by C. F. Miller. Contents 1 Free groups and presentations 3 1.1 Free groups . 3 1.2 Presentations by generators and relations . 7 1.3 Dehn’s fundamental problems . 9 1.4 Homomorphisms . 10 1.5 Presentations and fundamental groups . 12 1.6 Tietze transformations . 14 1.7 Extraction principles . 15 2 Construction of new groups 17 2.1 Direct products . 17 2.2 Free products . 19 2.3 Free products with amalgamation . 21 2.4 HNN extensions . 24 3 Properties, embeddings and examples 27 3.1 Countable groups embed in 2-generator groups . 27 3.2 Non-finite presentability of subgroups . 29 3.3 Hopfian and residually finite groups . 31 4 Subgroup Theory 35 4.1 Subgroups of Free Groups . 35 4.1.1 The general case . 35 4.1.2 Finitely generated subgroups of free groups . 35 4.2 Subgroups of presented groups . 41 4.3 Subgroups of free products . 43 4.4 Groups acting on trees . 44 5 Decision Problems 45 5.1 The word and conjugacy problems . 45 5.2 Higman’s embedding theorem . 51 1 5.3 The isomorphism problem and recognizing properties . 52 2 Chapter 1 Free groups and presentations In introductory courses on abstract algebra one is likely to encounter the dihedral group D3 consisting of the rigid motions of an equilateral triangle onto itself.
    [Show full text]
  • A Few Points in Topos Theory
    A few points in topos theory Sam Zoghaib∗ Abstract This paper deals with two problems in topos theory; the construction of finite pseudo-limits and pseudo-colimits in appropriate sub-2-categories of the 2-category of toposes, and the definition and construction of the fundamental groupoid of a topos, in the context of the Galois theory of coverings; we will take results on the fundamental group of étale coverings in [1] as a starting example for the latter. We work in the more general context of bounded toposes over Set (instead of starting with an effec- tive descent morphism of schemes). Questions regarding the existence of limits and colimits of diagram of toposes arise while studying this prob- lem, but their general relevance makes it worth to study them separately. We expose mainly known constructions, but give some new insight on the assumptions and work out an explicit description of a functor in a coequalizer diagram which was as far as the author is aware unknown, which we believe can be generalised. This is essentially an overview of study and research conducted at dpmms, University of Cambridge, Great Britain, between March and Au- gust 2006, under the supervision of Martin Hyland. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 General knowledge 3 3 On (co)limits of toposes 6 3.1 The construction of finite limits in BTop/S ............ 7 3.2 The construction of finite colimits in BTop/S ........... 9 4 The fundamental groupoid of a topos 12 4.1 The fundamental group of an atomic topos with a point . 13 4.2 The fundamental groupoid of an unpointed locally connected topos 15 5 Conclusion and future work 17 References 17 ∗e-mail: [email protected] 1 1 Introduction Toposes were first conceived ([2]) as kinds of “generalised spaces” which could serve as frameworks for cohomology theories; that is, mapping topological or geometrical invariants with an algebraic structure to topological spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • A Small Complete Category
    Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 40 (1988) 135-165 135 North-Holland A SMALL COMPLETE CATEGORY J.M.E. HYLAND Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statktics, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 ISB, England Communicated by D. van Dalen Received 14 October 1987 0. Introduction This paper is concerned with a remarkable fact. The effective topos contains a small complete subcategory, essentially the familiar category of partial equiv- alence realtions. This is in contrast to the category of sets (indeed to all Grothendieck toposes) where any small complete category is equivalent to a (complete) poset. Note at once that the phrase ‘a small complete subcategory of a topos’ is misleading. It is not the subcategory but the internal (small) category which matters. Indeed for any ordinary subcategory of a topos there may be a number of internal categories with global sections equivalent to the given subcategory. The appropriate notion of subcategory is an indexed (or better fibred) one, see 0.1. Another point that needs attention is the definition of completeness (see 0.2). In my talk at the Church’s Thesis meeting, and in the first draft of this paper, I claimed too strong a form of completeness for the internal category. (The elementary oversight is described in 2.7.) Fortunately during the writing of [13] my collaborators Edmund Robinson and Giuseppe Rosolini noticed the mistake. Again one needs to pay careful attention to the ideas of indexed (or fibred) categories. The idea that small (sufficiently) complete categories in toposes might exist, and would provide the right setting in which to discuss models for strong polymorphism (quantification over types), was suggested to me by Eugenio Moggi.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Category Theory (Notes for Course Taught at HUJI, Fall 2020-2021) (UNPOLISHED DRAFT)
    Introduction to category theory (notes for course taught at HUJI, Fall 2020-2021) (UNPOLISHED DRAFT) Alexander Yom Din February 10, 2021 It is never true that two substances are entirely alike, differing only in being two rather than one1. G. W. Leibniz, Discourse on metaphysics 1This can be imagined to be related to at least two of our themes: the imperative of considering a contractible groupoid of objects as an one single object, and also the ideology around Yoneda's lemma ("no two different things have all their properties being exactly the same"). 1 Contents 1 The basic language 3 1.1 Categories . .3 1.2 Functors . .7 1.3 Natural transformations . .9 2 Equivalence of categories 11 2.1 Contractible groupoids . 11 2.2 Fibers . 12 2.3 Fibers and fully faithfulness . 12 2.4 A lemma on fully faithfulness in families . 13 2.5 Definition of equivalence of categories . 14 2.6 Simple examples of equivalence of categories . 17 2.7 Theory of the fundamental groupoid and covering spaces . 18 2.8 Affine algebraic varieties . 23 2.9 The Gelfand transform . 26 2.10 Galois theory . 27 3 Yoneda's lemma, representing objects, limits 27 3.1 Yoneda's lemma . 27 3.2 Representing objects . 29 3.3 The definition of a limit . 33 3.4 Examples of limits . 34 3.5 Dualizing everything . 39 3.6 Examples of colimits . 39 3.7 General colimits in terms of special ones . 41 4 Adjoint functors 42 4.1 Bifunctors . 42 4.2 The definition of adjoint functors . 43 4.3 Some examples of adjoint functors .
    [Show full text]